FROM

“What we witness inside animal agriculture is beyond comprehension,” she
told me. “The public would not believe us, if we were not able to bring out
the video and photographs of the extreme torture, humiliation, deprivation,
terror and pain the animals suffer endlessly in their incarceration… Ag-Gag
laws won’t stop us.”

The man is dressed in all black with a ski mask covering his face. He’s
shining a flashlight and his other hand is grasping a fence, as if he’s
about to break through. The menacing imagery on the flier, along with bright
yellow banners and an abundance of exclamation points, looks like it could
be part of a Homeland Security campaign.

But this is part of a different type of campaign by the farmer’s
association in Austria. The threat? Animal welfare activists who have
published photographs and video of factory farms.

For the past few years in the United States, the agriculture industry has
tried to make it illegal to photograph or videotape animal abuse on factory
farms and slaughterhouses. These “ag-gag”bills are a direct response to
undercover investigations by groups like the Humane Society and Mercy for
Animals. Their shocking video footage, obtained by workers with hidden
cameras, has shown workers beating turkeys with metal pipes and slamming
piglets onto concrete floors, among other abuses; the

investigations have also led to the largest meat recall in U.S. history,
criminal charges, and ballot initiatives in multiple states calling for
reform.

The proposals have become law in Iowa, Utah and Missouri, and more states
will consider them this year. Now, other countries are following the lead of
U.S. groups, and introducing their own attempts to silence factory farm
whistleblowers.

The Austrian ad campaign, for instance, singles out animal activist
Martin Balluch and his group VGT, the Association Against Animal Factories.
Balluch has criticized the Austrian People’s Party for fighting animal
welfare legislation, and he says it’s because 26 percent of the party has
ties to the ag industry (much like in the United States, where the sponsors
of “ag-gag” bills have close ties to the industry as well). To prove the
point, VGT published photographs taken at farms owned by those politicians.

That didn’t sit well with the Austrian Farmers’ Association or the ÖVP,
who hit back with the ad campaign and claims of “farm families terrorized.”
Balluch says it’s “A number of pure fantasy and false statements to distract
from the legitimate allegations” of abuse.

Austria is not alone.

These types of investigations are being classified as “terrorism”
throughout Europe. EUROPOL publishes a report on terrorism threats, which is
meant as a warning for law enforcement agencies. The report includes the
2005 bombing of the London subway, for example, and the 2004 bombing of the
Madrid train system. The report also includes a section on animal rights
activists, and a warning about activists with cameras.

“ARE [animal rights extremists] activists also use disinformation methods
in order to discredit their targets and weaken their public acceptance,” the
report says. “Images of sick and abused animals are embedded in video
footage and made public.”

In Finland, an animal rights group called Oikeutta eläimille (Justice for
Animals) did exactly that, and faced harsh penalties. T+-he group published
photographs and video footage from 30 pig factory farms. The two-month
investigationsikatehtaat2011-80 documented injured and dying pigs, and led
to a national outcry by the public and members of parliament.

Instead of prosecuting those responsible for the animal abuse, law
enforcement went after the whistleblowers. “When we decided to talk openly
about the filming, we knew that we could be charged,” says Saila Kivelä.
Among the charges she and Karry Hedberg faced was “aggravated defamation.”
The pig industry called for prison sentences. But as Kivela told a Finnish
media outlet: “How can you defame somebody by showing something that is
true?”

Earlier this year, an appellate court agreed and some of the charges
against the group were dropped. One activist was given a suspended jail
sentence of 20 days and ordered to pay the pig farmers’ legal fees. The more
lasting impact, activists fear, is that the prosecution is meant to
intimidate other investigators and whistleblowers.

In Australia, the agriculture industry has been closely following ag-gag,
and wants its own copycat version. The Victoria Farmer’s Federation says
existing laws haven’t been able to stop activists from covertly filming
farms, and sometimes rescuing animals in need of medical treatment. Katrina
Hodgkinson, the New South Wales Primary Industries Minister, said those
filmmakers are “akin to terrorists.” The pig industry has paid for
television ads that say animal activists with cameras “terrorise pigs at
night.”

Farmers are even offering a $10,000 (AUS) reward to anyone who can help
convict an animal activist.

Since April, a Western Australian Senator named Chris Back has been
formulating ag-gag legislation to stop websites like AussiePigs.com that
publicize undercover footage. And with the Liberal-National Party Coalition
winning by a landslide in September, animal advocates fear that the
legislation could become a reality.

“We are concerned about the possibility of these laws being introduced
into Australia but we are not, in any way, deterred from continuing what we
know to be very important work,” says Patty Mark of Animal Liberation
Victoria. Mark has been carrying out investigations of factory farms in
Australia for 20 years.

“What we witness inside animal agriculture is beyond comprehension,” she
told me. “The public would not believe us, if we were not able to bring out
the video and photographs of the extreme torture, humiliation, deprivation,
terror and pain the animals suffer endlessly in their incarceration… Ag-Gag
laws won’t stop us.”

Fair Use Notice: This document, and others on our web site, may contain copyrighted
material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owners.
We believe that this not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use
of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law).
If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use,
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.